Beatles Vinyl by Erwin Bernal (CC BY 2.0)

Beatles Vinyl by Erwin Bernal (CC BY 2.0)


Canadian Music Industry Hit With Competition Complaint Over Public Domain Recordings

Earlier this year, I wrote about the secret campaign by major record labels and publishers to stop the release of public domain recordings, most notably Beatles records that outsold the offerings from major label records at retail giant Wal-Mart. The campaign included extensive lobbying for an extension in the term of copyright for sound recordings. The government included the extension in the April 2015 budget, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper writing personally to the Graham Henderson of Music Canada to inform him of the change. The reforms were a gift to the recording industry, with the result that Canadian consumers now face higher prices and less choice.

Stargrove Entertainment, the company behind the public domain Beatles releases, has found that the industry is still blocking attempts to bring works in the public domain to market. As a result, this week it filed a complaint with the Canadian Competition Tribunal, claiming that major record labels such as Universal Music and Sony Music, music publishers, and CMRRA are violating Canadian competition law by refusing to deal, engaging in illegal price maintenance, and exclusive dealing. The company is seeking an order requiring the companies to provide a mechanical licence so that it can continue to produce and sell public domain records. The complaint (CT-2015-009) should be posted on the Tribunal site shortly.

The complaint tells a fascinating behind-the-scenes tale, with the recording industry doing everything in its powers – including posting false reviews and pressuring distributors – to stop the sale of competing records. The complaint notably identifies Universal Music Canada as a key player in the alleged activities, including former President Randy Lennox, who last week jumped to Bell Media.

The Stargrove complaint alleges three violations of Canadian competition law by the record labels, music publishers, and CMRRA.  First, it argues a violation of refusal to deal (Section 75(1) of the Competition Act) because rights holders are denying Stargrove mechnical licences on the usual trade terms. The company notes that these licences are “normally granted as a matter of course”. The effect has been to deny the public access to competitively priced, popular recordings. Second, it argues violation of the illegal price maintenance provisions (Section 76 of the Competition Act) since the denial of licences is designed to keep Stargrove out of the market and maintain market share and higher pricing. Third, it argues a violation of exclusive dealing (Section 77 of the Competition Act), pointing to Universal’s pressure on distributors and posting of false reviews to keep Stargrove out of the market. Given these violations, Stargrove has asked the Competition Tribunal to order a stop to the violations and to enter into an agreement on standard trade terms.

While the legal issues will be played out at the Competition Tribunal, the evidence included in the application paints a picture of an industry desperate to keep low-priced, consumer friendly alternatives out of the market. Indeed, this had little to do with compensating artists (Stargrove was trying to pay the songwriters) but rather was about maintaining market and price discipline by any means possible.

The application includes evidence of the enormous popularity of the public domain Beatles records. For example, in their first week in Wal-Mart, one of the Beatles CDs was the top seller for all of Wal-Mart Canada. In the months that followed, Wal-Mart and the distributor were anxious for more releases, noting the popularity among Canadian consumers. Stargrove says it planned 45 more releases for 2016, but the industry and the Canadian government has presumably put a stop (for now) to those plans.

In response to the release, the record labels and music publishers tried to shut down the distribution chain. Several rights holders refused to grant mechanical licences, resulting in the removal of a new public domain CD from the Rolling Stones. Later CMRRA, which grants blanket licences, sought to withdraw their licence. Moreover, Universal Music Group,  headed at the time by Lennox, allegedly began fabricating negative reviews of the public domain CDs on the Wal-Mart site. Terry Pursini, the President of Stargrove, says in his affidavit that a Universal Music account manager admitted creating the reviews and urged other employees to do the same. Meanwhile, Lennox allegedly wrote to the CD distributor to ask how it could partner “to resolve the public domain issue.”

In addition to the business pressures and false reviews, Universal Music began lobbying the Canadian government to change the law. The affidavit notes that the distributor advised Stargrove of the lobbying effort as early as December 2014. Despite months of advance notice, the government never publicly raised the issue or consulted with the public. In fact, in documents I obtained under Access to Information, Canadian Heritage officials admitted in February 2015 that there during the many years of copyright reform, there was no evidence of requests for sound recording copyright term extension from Music Canada or the major record labels (including Universal Music).

With the government’s sound recording term extension – completed without any public consultation and without the opportunity for anyone other than the recording industry to appear before committee – Canadian consumers will now pay higher prices for some music with less choice. The latest legal move by Stargrove offers some hope that at least existing public domain records might eventually make their way into the Canadian marketplace.


  1. When the government put an extension of copyright terms from 50 to 70 years into the budget bill, and it was done retroactively, not prospectively, I wrote and complained.

    The bargain was struck many years ago between the public and the copyright holders. They have a monopoly for 50 years, and afterwards the recordings are in the public domain.

    The copryight legistation found in the budget bill is actually a tax on Canadians – taking away their public domain rights. This was pointed out to the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Finance. I also pointed out that the majority of these recordings are held by US entities, and there is an exemption under Article XII of the Canada/US Tax Agreement from withholding.

    In effect the “Harper Government” taxed Canadians to pay US rights holders.

    So why the new tax Harper Government, when Canadians get ZERO out of the bargain?

    The Honourable James Moore has ducked and deferred to the Minister of Culture – who to this point in time has continued to be unresponsive. Guess we know why.

  2. I just like the helpful info you supply on your articles.
    I will bookmark your blog and take a look at again here
    frequently. I’m fairly sure I will be informed lots of
    new stuff proper right here! Good luck for the following!

  3. Pingback: Beatlemania Returns to Canada: This Time, in Public Domain, Spurring Fight | U.N.I.C. TIMES

  4. This is an excellent recap of how the current government promises one thing (ie. lower prices, more market activity) and delivers another after ‘behind closed doors meetings’ with a few companies.

    It also shows how the Harper government is woefully disconnected with the real digital universe and how these actions will only force consumers looking for content to steal or share instead of getting content from legitimate, reasonably priced services.

    Finally, it reveals that musicians (and all other performers) should act for themselves and protect their copyright materials by their own initiative so that companies like Wal-Mart don’t make millions ad infinitum while your family starves.

  5. Regime change 2015!!!

  6. Pingback: Interessante Links und Nachrichten 03.09.2015ff - Aleks Weltweit

  7. With the government s sound recording term extension completed without any public consultation and without the opportunity for anyone other than the recording industry to appear before committee Canadian consumers will now pay higher prices for some music with less choice. The latest legal move by Stargrove offers some hope that at least existing public domain records might eventually make their way into the Canadian marketplace.

  8. Devil's Advocate says:

    Re: Comment #74662 (directly above)…

    I see the spambots are now into pulling a sentence or paragraph straight from the article and entering that as their comments. That must make auto-filtering a little more diffcult.

  9. Pingback: Policies for Combating Commercial Piracy / Politiques de lutte contre la piraterie commerciale | Pirate Party of Canada

  10. Pingback: Record Labels Conspired To Stop Public Domain Beatles Music In Canada - South Carolina Music Guide

  11. Someuknownguy says:

    What stargrove did has been going on for years and years, literally since CDs were first invented. Every single distributor in Canada who served the budget market particularly cross border to the USA, lifted pre-50 year old masters off of the original vinyls and then sold the songs on CDs into mass retailers in the USA as a get around the USA’s extended copyright terms. Sell them as finished goods with an import USA mechanical license and you’re good to go. Stargrove got caught because the Beatles got onto the radar, the labels take decades to catch up to anything and at the moment the labels can make more money digging back through the dirt and suing people than they can selling records.

  12. The article is really helpful. I like music. It’s relax mind and body.Canada’s music industry has produced internationally renowned artists.

  13. Are all recordings released before June 1965 in PD in Canada? If Stargrove wins and are granted mechanical licenses, can anyone release a cd of PD songs? Could they release all the songs from With The Beatles in the same running order and call it With The Beatles? Could they use the same picture if they got permission from Robert Freeman as their cover? Do all of the songs need to be released in Canada before June 1965 to be PD (Beatles For Sale was released in the UK in 1964, but three of its songs were not released in Canada until June 1965 (Beatles VI)? If they were only released in Canada in Mono, can they be released in Stereo? Are recordings that were recorded 50 years ago, but weren’t released in PD (alternate takes of songs and live versions of songs not released)? Last question. Are the Beatles BBC tracks broadcasted before june 1965 in PD even those released later on the two volumes from Apple, because they are radio broadcasts? Thanks. Greg

  14. Pingback: Record Labels Conspired To Stop Public Domain Beatles Music In Canada - hypebot